[normhead]

A DA 16-85 vs DA 18-135 comparison cross posted from this thread.
Help me decide 18-135 or 16-85 - PentaxForums.com

I was out today for my dog walk, and took a couple comparison images....
I think these images define the DA 18-135 and DA 16-85

First, I didn't nail 85mm on the DA 18-135, I got a 78 mm image, meaning absolutely direct comparisons are impossible.

DA 16-85


DA 18-135


With T looking over my shoulder we compared the images at full resolution, something you guys won't get a chance to do.

Our impressions were we suspect the DA 16-85 is a little sharper on the edges.
We think the DA 18-135 is a little sharper in the middle.

Overall, the rendering of the DA 16-85 is slightly better, but you have to have the images side by side to notice. It's not a significant difference.

So all that's been said is still there for us. The DA 16-85, slightly better rendering and edge sharpness, the DA 18-135 more range, better centre.

That said, I missed 4 or 5 images I wanted to take (because I'm used to the DA 18-135) but didn't even attempt because of the lack of range on the DA 16-85. And that for me highlights the trade off.

It should come as no surprise that in incorporating more range into a zoom 5.3:1 for the DA 16-85 to 7.5:1 for the DA 18-135 the DA 16-85 will perform marginally better. It comes down to, do you want maximum range for a walk around or maximum IQ for prints. Which is why my DA 18-135 is preferred as a one lens solution, and my DA 16-85 is preferred as part of a two lens kit with the DA 55-300 PLM.

Really there are no bad choices here. It depends on what and how you shoot which lens will favour your style.

It's always nice when your real world assumptions are backed up by real world photo examples.
Hopefully this help evaluate, what you give up in IQ to get the extra range. I aid "I'll take the extra range. I can easily understand someone else saying "I'll take the extra IQ."

Incidentally, I used the same camera and settings, I and the same (copy pasted) image processing. Optimized first for the DA 18-135, but the DA 16-85 images are slightly better with the same processing.

[garywakeling]

Nice to see real world comparisons, I like the 18-135 as a walk around lens too and like yourself go for the 2 lens 16-50 with 50-135 when I want better quality ( and am prepared to take more gear)

[biz-engineer]

Our impressions were we suspect the DA 16-85 is a little sharper on the edges.We think the DA 18-135 is a little sharper in the middle.

I dragged & dropped your 18-135 image in Topaz Sharpen AI, all the blur is gone, the output is tack sharp across the frame, easily beats the 16-85.

[normhead]

I dragged & dropped your 18-135 image in Topaz Sharpen AI, all the blur is gone, the output is tack sharp across the frame, easily beats the 16-85.

But does it beat the DA 16-85 that's been Topazed?

I guess I should look into that, although I'm not convinced images like this are made better by adding sharpness, especially at reduced size when you stand back and look at the whole image as you should.

[Paul the Sunman]

Exactly as I've said in multiple "which should I buy" threads. Thanks for this. The slightly warmer rendering of the 16-85 is something I hadn't noticed before.

I would point out though that a real strength of the 16-85 is the extra 2mm at the short end. It's remarkable, but the trade-off of 50mm at the long end for 2mm at the short is worth it in an urban/architectural/monumental environment. When combined with a 55-300, it is absolutely worth it.

[biz-engineer]

But does it beat the DA 16-85 that's been Topazed?

humm , I deleted the first picture, but I think I couldn't tell the difference between the two after sharpening. Well, you can download Topaz Sharpen AI free trial to do a comparison (takes a while to download due to AI stuff..).
Looking at both images as there are here, the 18-135 show more aberrations at edges and corners, after sharpening CA is gone, so both images look identical. There is a cost to sharpening, the cost of processing time, it's slow, you just can't do it on all pictures.

[normhead]

I dragged & dropped your 18-135 image in Topaz Sharpen AI, all the blur is gone, the output is tack sharp across the frame, easily beats the 16-85.

If you'd be willing to post your results you certainly have my permission to do so.

[biz-engineer]

If you'd be willing to post your results you certainly have my permission to do so.

Ahhh I don't have credits to post images anymore here, and I don't have a flickr account. Maybe I could redo it , and upload to google drive for you?

[normhead]

Whatever works? No Flickr account? I'm trying to wrap my head around that... the first 2 GB are free.

[normhead]

Exactly as I've said in multiple "which should I buy" threads. Thanks for this. The slightly warmer rendering of the 16-85 is something I hadn't noticed before.

I would point out though that a real strength of the 16-85 is the extra 2mm at the short end. It's remarkable, but the trade-off of 50mm at the long end for 2mm at the short is worth it in an urban/architectural/monumental environment. When combined with a 55-300, it is absolutely worth it.

And since a lot more people live in urban areas than where I live it is probably true for most people. However, definitely not where I live.

[biz-engineer]

You'll be challenged to tell which is which

33zdg0el_SAI-Softness.jpg - Google Drive
fjwt09pl_SAI-Softness.jpg - Google Drive

[ChristianRock]

I think the difference in rendering is noticeable. The 16-85 image has more "vibrant" colors, for lack of a better word. At least on my monitors. It's not just the saturation and the contrast (which the 16-85 has a little bit more of, probably because of the HD coatings). I like the "quality of the colors" better, if that makes any sense. But for all I know, the 18-135 might have rendered more faithfully to the reality of the scene...

I paid no attention to edge sharpness... didn't try to pixel peep.

[normhead]

I think the difference in rendering is noticeable. The 16-85 image has more "vibrant" colors, for lack of a better word.

That would be accurate, but, if I wanted to I could match almost certainly the DA 16-85 image.

Looking at both images as there are here, the 18-135 show more aberrations at edges and corners, after sharpening CA is gone, so both images look identical.

I seem to see the Topaz images as quite bit darker. Lightening them to approx. the same value created some interesting artifacts.



It seems to have boosted the contrast whiter whites, darker darks then made them bigger. Interesting, but my first impressions is I'm uncertain there's an obvious benefit.

It took me longer to try and normalize the images than it did to work on the original images.

I tried matching the Topaz image , it does do something interesting that I don't think I can do with my software, and the image is definitely more dramatic. I suspect mine is more true to the original scene, but in my book, that counts for nothing. It's not what you captured, it's what you can do with it.

In any case, thanks for doing that, it's very informative.

[stevebrot]

I dragged & dropped your 18-135 image in Topaz Sharpen AI, all the blur is gone, the output is tack sharp across the frame, easily beats the 16-85.

PP begs the question of actual output. The obvious follow-up is whether there will be a comparison with other sharpening tools or just Topaz?


Steve

[stevebrot]

Incidentally, I used the same camera and settings, I and the same (copy pasted) image processing. Optimized first for the DA 18-135, but the DA 16-85 images are slightly better with the same processing.

Thanks for doing this. I am curious as to the gist of PP applied.


Steve